Why on Earth should Insurance companies have to cover pre-existing conditions?

[TNHarley]

Canadian system works pretty well. They're more satisfied with it than Americans have been under our system. Still to be determined if we'll like ACA. The major problem with the situation, as I see it, is that we've still got insurance companies involved. When you have a situation where everybody's going to eventually need benefits, it's going to be rife with corruption when the profit motive's on the line.

There is something that tears me on the issue.. Gov't cant run shit
I like the idea of EVERYONE having coverage(as long as they pay for it) but, damn man, they just cant seem to run anything. I am all for small gov't, but somethings the gov't has to run. The healthcare thinggy is just scarey. What if a gov't started a one-payer and sold it privately with guidelines?

Yes, but it didn't worked out very well when health care was turned over to the insurance companies in the form of HMO's, PPO's and their other managed care scams. All in an effort to keep down health care costs. Here we are today with the highest health care costs in the world and premiums none but the twenty somethings and wealthy can afford.

I highly doubt the government could do worse, to be honest. You'd probably disagree.

You support ACA and talk about premiums? LOL
I clearly stated I was for healthcare reform before this shit
Ask USPS how they are doing

 

[oldfart]

Some people seem to have a very strange view of what insurance companies do. They point to the problem of people who have a pre-existing condition, trying to sign up for new insurance, only to find the insurance companies won't pay for the the treatment for that pre-existing condition.

Of course they won't. That's not what insurance companies do. Whoever said they did?

I'm not sure where you get your information about the history of the health care insurance industry, but you need to look further.

In the beginning, almost all health insurance was open enrollment, everyone was covered regardless of condition. This was the Kaiser model of the 1940's and the Blue Cross model of the 1950's. Most large groups today, covering perhaps 60% of all insured, have a pre-existing condition clause, but it only excludes coverage for a period of 6 months to two years for that condition. This is typically waived if you are switching plans and demonstrate that you have current coverage for the pre-existing condition. Medicare supplement plans can only deny coverage for pre-existing conditions if you have no current coverage when you apply for Medicare and the denial period is only 90 days.

Last time I looked, the profit margins of health insurance companies were pretty good, so it doesn't appear they will be leaving the market anytime soon.

 

[konradv]

I could agree to something that worked best for everyone. That is why I am against obamacare, or Romneycare for that matter.

Canadian system works pretty well. They're more satisfied with it than Americans have been under our system. Still to be determined if we'll like ACA. The major problem with the situation, as I see it, is that we've still got insurance companies involved. When you have a situation where everybody's going to eventually need benefits, it's going to be rife with corruption when the profit motive's on the line.

If you advocate we in the United States completely abandon the free market model that has worked for over 200 years in favor of a socialist health care system, you need to hear about Shona Holmes experience with the government health care system in Canada.
Holmes (see video below) was diagnosed with brain cancer, with her vision deteriorating rapidly, but was placed on the treatment waiting lists common to health care in socialist countries. While the average wait time for many procedures can run 18 months or more, Holmes actually made out pretty good by only having to wait 6 months for surgery for her brain tumor.
Rather than wait like a good little subject, she came to the States and got the health care she needed within three weeks. You know, the United States health care system liberals claim is so broken it must be replaced with a government system…you know, kinda like the one in Canada.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/where-can-americans-go-for-treatment-under-govt-health-care/

The doctors would still be in a free market situation. Just the insurance companies would be out of the health business. What you've presented us with a bit of anecdotal evidence that runs counter to the experience of most Canadians. Tell me, what happens to Americans that can't afford insurance and don't have government health benefits? Why no stories about that?

 

[OKTexas]

That's why we need single-payer. Check out the Canadian system. It's a good example.

Sure, it takes months to get a test, if you get it at all.

 

[TNHarley]

Canadian system works pretty well. They're more satisfied with it than Americans have been under our system. Still to be determined if we'll like ACA. The major problem with the situation, as I see it, is that we've still got insurance companies involved. When you have a situation where everybody's going to eventually need benefits, it's going to be rife with corruption when the profit motive's on the line.

If you advocate we in the United States completely abandon the free market model that has worked for over 200 years in favor of a socialist health care system, you need to hear about Shona Holmes experience with the government health care system in Canada.
Holmes (see video below) was diagnosed with brain cancer, with her vision deteriorating rapidly, but was placed on the treatment waiting lists common to health care in socialist countries. While the average wait time for many procedures can run 18 months or more, Holmes actually made out pretty good by only having to wait 6 months for surgery for her brain tumor.
Rather than wait like a good little subject, she came to the States and got the health care she needed within three weeks. You know, the United States health care system liberals claim is so broken it must be replaced with a government system…you know, kinda like the one in Canada.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/where-can-americans-go-for-treatment-under-govt-health-care/

The doctors would still be in a free market situation. Just the insurance companies would be out of the health business. What you've presented us with a bit of anecdotal evidence that runs counter to the experience of most Canadians. Tell me, what happens to Americans that can't afford insurance and don't have government health benefits? Why no stories about that?

Shouldn't that be the persons responsibility? I mean you can get a fulltime job.. Granted, I know Cobra is EXPENSIVE. I quit my job a few years back, had to get Cobra and it damn near broke me. But that goes along with I said about 3M. What else can you do besides suffer?

 

[konradv]

If you advocate we in the United States completely abandon the free market model that has worked for over 200 years in favor of a socialist health care system, you need to hear about Shona Holmes experience with the government health care system in Canada.
Holmes (see video below) was diagnosed with brain cancer, with her vision deteriorating rapidly, but was placed on the treatment waiting lists common to health care in socialist countries. While the average wait time for many procedures can run 18 months or more, Holmes actually made out pretty good by only having to wait 6 months for surgery for her brain tumor.
Rather than wait like a good little subject, she came to the States and got the health care she needed within three weeks. You know, the United States health care system liberals claim is so broken it must be replaced with a government system…you know, kinda like the one in Canada.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/where-can-americans-go-for-treatment-under-govt-health-care/

The doctors would still be in a free market situation. Just the insurance companies would be out of the health business. What you've presented us with a bit of anecdotal evidence that runs counter to the experience of most Canadians. Tell me, what happens to Americans that can't afford insurance and don't have government health benefits? Why no stories about that?

Shouldn't that be the persons responsibility? I mean you can get a fulltime job.. Granted, I know Cobra is EXPENSIVE. I quit my job a few years back, had to get Cobra and it damn near broke me. But that goes along with I said about 3M. What else can you do besides suffer?

Why should it have to break you? It's something we all need eventually. Like an old M.D. boss of mine said once "there are no wins in medicine, we're just trying to get into overtime". That's why I laugh when people complain about "death panels". That's all the insurance companies are and they make you pay through the nose for the "privilege" of their service.

 

[konradv]

That's why we need single-payer. Check out the Canadian system. It's a good example.

Sure, it takes months to get a test, if you get it at all.

Do some research. That's just a knee-jerk response based on no hard facts.

 

[hazlnut]

Some people seem to have a very strange view of what insurance companies do. They point to the problem of people who have a pre-existing condition, trying to sign up for new insurance, only to find the insurance companies won't pay for the the treatment for that pre-existing condition.

Of course they won't. That's not what insurance companies do. Whoever said they did?

Insurance is a gambling game where you bet on what will happen in the future. You "bet" that you will get sick or injured, and the company "bets" that you won't. If you get sick or injured, the company pays you the stipulated amount (paying for a portion of your medical treatment etc.), and if you don't, you pay them (premiums). The purpose is to shield you from the "shock" of suddenly and unexpectedly getting hit with huge medical bills... which is why you agreed to the contract.

A pre-existing condition cannot be insured against. It's like betting on the outcome of a horse race that's already been run - there is no "chance" involved, and no "unexpectedness" to the outcome (any more). Or like trying to get car insurance after wrecking your car.

Insurance companies are in the business of selling security - the assurance that you won't be suddenly bankrupted by huge medical bills, rehab bills etc. in the future. They do it by insuring huge numbers of people and getting them to each pay relatively small amounts (their premiums) each. They and their clients all know that most of them will never incur the huge medical bills they are worried about. But since no one knows which few people WILL incur them, they are all happy to pay the premiums, for the knowledge they won't have to pay the huge amounts if they turn out to be the unlucky ones.

Insurance companies sell safety from FUTURE possible disasters. And that's all they sell. Asking them to cover pre-existing conditions, is like asking a submarine designer to design a supersonic jet - it's got nothing to do with his business or his area of expertise, and he never volunteered to design jets in the first place, for good reason.

If you want to set up some kind of universal pool to pay for pre-existing conditions, fine, go ahead. But why drag insurance companies into it? It's got nothing to do with their areas of expertise, and they never volunteered to do it in the first place - for good reason.

Here's a better question, why do we need insurance companies at all?

 

[LoneLaugher]

That the government cannot run things is a myth.

 

[healthmyths]

Canadian system works pretty well. They're more satisfied with it than Americans have been under our system. Still to be determined if we'll like ACA. The major problem with the situation, as I see it, is that we've still got insurance companies involved. When you have a situation where everybody's going to eventually need benefits, it's going to be rife with corruption when the profit motive's on the line.

There is something that tears me on the issue.. Gov't cant run shit
I like the idea of EVERYONE having coverage(as long as they pay for it) but, damn man, they just cant seem to run anything. I am all for small gov't, but somethings the gov't has to run. The healthcare thinggy is just scarey. What if a gov't started a one-payer and sold it privately with guidelines?

Yes, but it didn't worked out very well when health care was turned over to the insurance companies in the form of HMO's, PPO's and their other managed care scams. All in an effort to keep down health care costs. Here we are today with the highest health care costs in the world and premiums none but the twenty somethings and wealthy can afford.

I highly doubt the government could do worse, to be honest. You'd probably disagree.

So let's see... Insurance companies do these 3 things with the premiums that are paid in:
80% of premiums paid out in claims.. It is a FACT backed by public held companies 10-Ks reports.
4.6% is the average net profit again from the studies of 10-Ks of public held companies
that lives 15.4% for salaries , offices, etc.. Overhead...

State regulations require companies to have reserves for future claims.
These reserves come ONLY after paying federal taxes on the 4.6% net income.

So companies must have reserves so they need profits!

What makes up the 80% claims that insurance companies pay?
The single largest identifiable block is the $850 billion a year the companies pay on claims filed by providers out of fear of lawsuits!
You don't believe me??
In a recent Gallup survey, physicians attributed 34 percent of overall healthcare costs to defensive medicine and 21 percent of their practice to be defensive in nature. Specifically, they estimated that 35 percent of diagnostic tests, 29 percent of lab tests, 19 percent of hospitalizations, 14 percent of prescriptions, and 8 percent of surgeries were performed to avoid lawsuits.
Liability reform has been estimated to result in anywhere from a 5 percent to a 34 percent reduction in medical expenditures by reducing defensive medicine practices, with estimates of savings from $54 billion to $650 billion.

So if $850 billion is being paid out in claims filed because of "defensive medicine" out of fear of lawsuits..
WHAT do you think can be done????
Because if half that $850 billion was reduced somehow THE INSURANCE companies would be reducing premiums to stay competitive with the other
1,300 insurance companies that would also experience lower claim payments!
That's how you fix it!

 

[OKTexas]

Single payer system offering a basic level of care regardless of income or health condition. Upgrade to a health insurance plan if you can afford it.

Be willing to accept the possibility it may come down to paying for it in taxes to the government rather than in premiums to insurance companies.

Some anti-government types will be hatin' on this idea.

**** 'em, I say.

What, you can't upgrade if you can afford it, that wouldn't be socially just. Evil rich people don't deserve better than anyone else just because they have the ability to pay for the service they want. Why are you defending rich people? Are you a republican?

 

[initforme]

Pre existing conditions is a tough one. At the same time, if you have NO pre existing condition and you HAVE been LOYALLY paying into the company, they have NO right to deny your coverage. Otherwise, you pay in over and over and never are able to receive care. If you get into coverage without an existing condition, then the insuring company should have ZERO say in your treatment plans. Suck it up company and simply pay it.

 

[Political Junky]

Canadian system works pretty well. They're more satisfied with it than Americans have been under our system. Still to be determined if we'll like ACA. The major problem with the situation, as I see it, is that we've still got insurance companies involved. When you have a situation where everybody's going to eventually need benefits, it's going to be rife with corruption when the profit motive's on the line.

There is something that tears me on the issue.. Gov't cant run shit
I like the idea of EVERYONE having coverage(as long as they pay for it) but, damn man, they just cant seem to run anything. I am all for small gov't, but somethings the gov't has to run. The healthcare thinggy is just scarey. What if a gov't started a one-payer and sold it privately with guidelines?

In the Canadian system the government doesn't run health care, it just pays for it. That's much different from the British system, which I don't support.

Ideally we'd have the Canadian plan, it's even called Medicare. We could just expand Medicare to cover cradle to grave.

 

[initforme]

in the end its totally unfortunate that if you get sick you are in debt that you can never ever get out of. But thats the way it is. And this happens in a country where we say we value life. Hmmmmmmm

 

[NYcarbineer]

Some people seem to have a very strange view of what insurance companies do. They point to the problem of people who have a pre-existing condition, trying to sign up for new insurance, only to find the insurance companies won't pay for the the treatment for that pre-existing condition.

Of course they won't. That's not what insurance companies do. Whoever said they did?

Insurance is a gambling game where you bet on what will happen in the future. You "bet" that you will get sick or injured, and the company "bets" that you won't. If you get sick or injured, the company pays you the stipulated amount (paying for a portion of your medical treatment etc.), and if you don't, you pay them (premiums). The purpose is to shield you from the "shock" of suddenly and unexpectedly getting hit with huge medical bills... which is why you agreed to the contract.

A pre-existing condition cannot be insured against. It's like betting on the outcome of a horse race that's already been run - there is no "chance" involved, and no "unexpectedness" to the outcome (any more). Or like trying to get car insurance after wrecking your car.

Insurance companies are in the business of selling security - the assurance that you won't be suddenly bankrupted by huge medical bills, rehab bills etc. in the future. They do it by insuring huge numbers of people and getting them to each pay relatively small amounts (their premiums) each. They and their clients all know that most of them will never incur the huge medical bills they are worried about. But since no one knows which few people WILL incur them, they are all happy to pay the premiums, for the knowledge they won't have to pay the huge amounts if they turn out to be the unlucky ones.

Insurance companies sell safety from FUTURE possible disasters. And that's all they sell. Asking them to cover pre-existing conditions, is like asking a submarine designer to design a supersonic jet - it's got nothing to do with his business or his area of expertise, and he never volunteered to design jets in the first place, for good reason.

If you want to set up some kind of universal pool to pay for pre-existing conditions, fine, go ahead. But why drag insurance companies into it? It's got nothing to do with their areas of expertise, and they never volunteered to do it in the first place - for good reason.

Here's a better question, why do we need insurance companies at all?

Good point. There should be no profit motive in the providing of insurance. All the profit motive does is encourage the companies to find every way possible to collect as much as they can in premiums and pay out as little as possible in benefits.

 

[initforme]

We are talking about people's lives correct? if you are pro life then how are you against pre existing conditions? Jus wondering

 

[konradv]

Some people seem to have a very strange view of what insurance companies do. They point to the problem of people who have a pre-existing condition, trying to sign up for new insurance, only to find the insurance companies won't pay for the the treatment for that pre-existing condition.

Of course they won't. That's not what insurance companies do. Whoever said they did?

Insurance is a gambling game where you bet on what will happen in the future. You "bet" that you will get sick or injured, and the company "bets" that you won't. If you get sick or injured, the company pays you the stipulated amount (paying for a portion of your medical treatment etc.), and if you don't, you pay them (premiums). The purpose is to shield you from the "shock" of suddenly and unexpectedly getting hit with huge medical bills... which is why you agreed to the contract.

A pre-existing condition cannot be insured against. It's like betting on the outcome of a horse race that's already been run - there is no "chance" involved, and no "unexpectedness" to the outcome (any more). Or like trying to get car insurance after wrecking your car.

Insurance companies are in the business of selling security - the assurance that you won't be suddenly bankrupted by huge medical bills, rehab bills etc. in the future. They do it by insuring huge numbers of people and getting them to each pay relatively small amounts (their premiums) each. They and their clients all know that most of them will never incur the huge medical bills they are worried about. But since no one knows which few people WILL incur them, they are all happy to pay the premiums, for the knowledge they won't have to pay the huge amounts if they turn out to be the unlucky ones.

Insurance companies sell safety from FUTURE possible disasters. And that's all they sell. Asking them to cover pre-existing conditions, is like asking a submarine designer to design a supersonic jet - it's got nothing to do with his business or his area of expertise, and he never volunteered to design jets in the first place, for good reason.

If you want to set up some kind of universal pool to pay for pre-existing conditions, fine, go ahead. But why drag insurance companies into it? It's got nothing to do with their areas of expertise, and they never volunteered to do it in the first place - for good reason.

Here's a better question, why do we need insurance companies at all?

Good point. There should be no profit motive in the providing of insurance. All the profit motive does is encourage the companies to find every way possible to collect as much as they can in premiums and pay out as little as possible in benefits.

Just don't call them "death panels". That's something Obama invented.

 

[TNHarley]

The doctors would still be in a free market situation. Just the insurance companies would be out of the health business. What you've presented us with a bit of anecdotal evidence that runs counter to the experience of most Canadians. Tell me, what happens to Americans that can't afford insurance and don't have government health benefits? Why no stories about that?

Shouldn't that be the persons responsibility? I mean you can get a fulltime job.. Granted, I know Cobra is EXPENSIVE. I quit my job a few years back, had to get Cobra and it damn near broke me. But that goes along with I said about 3M. What else can you do besides suffer?

Why should it have to break you? It's something we all need eventually. Like an old M.D. boss of mine said once "there are no wins in medicine, we're just trying to get into overtime". That's why I laugh when people complain about "death panels". That's all the insurance companies are and they make you pay through the nose for the "privilege" of their service.

It shouldn't have to. Not to an high "at risk" customer, anyway. That's why I support reform or something that will REALLY work, for everyone's benefit

 

[TNHarley]

We are talking about people's lives correct? if you are pro life then how are you against pre existing conditions? Jus wondering

Good point. Ask insurance agents

 

[TNHarley]

that the government cannot run things is a myth.

usps